jroland wrote:Actually, I was set on PhD programs in medieval lit or German philology until fairly recently. Most of my energy has been spent in that department. I wouldn't waste my time or the time of anyone else writing untrue and, more importantly, not very interesting posts on a law school forum. Of course I suspected my chances were above average, but one ought not be blindly confident, right? You guys are the experts here. So yes, it was a genuine post.

Just out of curiosity, why did you bother to take the LSAT during the early part of your Junior year?

vanwinkle wrote:It's not a dumb question, it's just an easy to answer one. There's a difference between the two.

lol they arent mutually exclusive -- i think it was a dumb question AND an easy one to answer

i guess i was just never a fan of asking something i could find out on my own easily (usually better sources and i learn more about the topic)...you know that person in class that raises his hand and always has the dumbest comment/question? and i dont mean dumb like his opinion is dumb, but dumb like he clearly didnt even BOTHER to think of a good question or find out the answer on his own? yeah, i dont like that guy lol

Last edited by DoubleChecks on Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

atlantalaw wrote:this is what is silly about tls. posters will spend pages debating whether an op is a flame instead of just answering a basic question and moving on. 1. if op is a flame, he isn't a good one. he didn't even say he was a urm or something to make the post controversial.2. what large numbers of people are bored enough to come onto a law school website and make up an account just to post a few threads? if i weren't applying to law school, i guarantee i never would stumble across this site on the interwebz. i'd be searching for something cool, like skydiving. law school admissions isn't exactly exciting to the average american.3. if op isn't a flame, then all these people calling flame are just discouraging valid people from posting questions, which is what this site is for. 4. even if op is a flame, wouldn't it just be better to answer the question in case someone else was wondering something similar?calling flame every 3 threads is just not productive. if you really think op is a flame, wouldn't it just be better to ignore the post altogether and not waste your time responding? every time you respond, you are bumping what you think is a troll's thread.

2. Bitter people that got dinged or did bad on LSAT

3. Valid people with those numbers are going to be ok either way, TLS or not. Also, I doubte that a little internet scepticism is enough to scare off people with legit queations, if so god help 'em.

4. That question, with his numbers, really?

Calling flame serves a purpose of protecting other users from melicious posters and its also fun.

jroland wrote:Actually, I was set on PhD programs in medieval lit or German philology until fairly recently. Most of my energy has been spent in that department. I wouldn't waste my time or the time of anyone else writing untrue and, more importantly, not very interesting posts on a law school forum. Of course I suspected my chances were above average, but one ought not be blindly confident, right? You guys are the experts here. So yes, it was a genuine post.

Nietzsche was my favorite German philologist.... your story is somewhat believable now. Becoming a lawyer is a more practical way of being a philosopher/philologist, especially in modern society.

I took the LSAT because the thrill of a life in academia began to wane. Also, a good friend was going through the application/acceptance process at UT-Austin and Georgetown last year. He made a 169, so I decided to give it a go as well. I'm pretty set on law school now.

DoubleChecks wrote:1. OP saying he were URM wouldnt make it more controversial...i think it'd just give a lot of ammo to the "he's a flame" team lol

2. ? you think most flames are ppl who never want to attend law school, one day decide to make an account and post something somewhat knowledgeable yet absurd at the same time? no...i imagine its ppl who have accounts on this site...are semi-regulars, got bored during the late hours (or got fed up reading certain threads) and created another quick account w/ no posts to do Exhibit A --> this thread

3. i thought TLS was all about discouraging ppl from asking DUMB questions. we all know TLS has a personality, and ive always thought it was on the money...id imagine someone w/ half a brain would do some research first...like quick glancing around the forum or available resources plastered all over the side of the home page or using the search function...asking these types of questions 100% will get TLSers coming out of the woodwork to 'comment'

4. lolwut? his question was answered right off the bat...multiple times, what are you smoking?

1. urm is the best way to make something controversial, even if it has nothing to do with making the op controversial, since it can devolve into an aa debate. have you not been on tls that long?2. there are so many threads that exist already that i find it hard to get bored. creating alts is a great way to make the mods ban you, since the mods can see your ip or whatever. so no, the thought of making an alt doesn't sound that appealing. not saying no one does it...i know some people do, but i highly doubt they do it as often as people call flame. it is hard to believe there are *that* many bored already-posters.3. tls can be extremely elitist, but i think the main point of tls is to give information about law school to whoever wants it. that is why i post here, that is why i answer questions here. i want to help people. sure, repetitive threads get obnoxious once you are here for a while, but there are only so many questions one can ask about law school. almost every thread can be answered by 'use the search function' and that snarky answer gets old. 4. many people happened to answer his question right off the bat itt, but i've seen many threads where people calling flame derail the thread before the op is even answered. i didn't say it happened itt. look at what i wrote again.

Umm, hypothetically speaking and assuming one has a 4.0/176, wouldn't they also be able to handle researching the probability of entrance into H-Law based on these figures? Wouldn't they have created a TLS account with more than 2 posts prior to the original inquiry as well? Interesting.

I got a 170 LSAT and was still applying to and focusing on TTT schools because of my low GPA when I joined TLS. I seriously thought I was reaching by trying to go to schools like Cardozo or Brooklyn. Everyone can be insecure and clueless at times, even the highly successful.

samesies/LSAT twin/GPA cousin. i was concerned about getting into cardozo back then.

3. Valid people with those numbers are going to be ok either way, TLS or not. Also, I [strike]doubte[/strike] doubt that a little internet [strike]scepticism[/strike] skepticism is enough to scare off people with legit [strike]queations[/strike] questions, if so god help 'em.

4. That question, with his numbers, really?

Calling flame serves a purpose of protecting other users from [strike]melicious[/strike] malicious posters and its also fun.

My .02 (Assuming it's a legit question): Harvard seems to be very numbers driven and I suspect you'll do well with those numbers. That being said, I'm not sure that being treasurer of a frat and such are all that decent for softs when you're competing with other HYS applicants. If you're shooting for Yale or Stanford or another school that highlights non-quantitative aspects of your application you might be in for a bit of trouble if you can't spin things well - remember that you're up against folk who have done Peace Corps, TFA, and people who have advanced degrees and real work experience. Still certainly worth a shot, but a bit more thought should be put into the personal statement...

rw2264 wrote:samesies/LSAT twin/GPA cousin. i was concerned about getting into cardozo back then.

Ahahaha yes. They invited me to be considered for their January admission program, since their enrollment was low, and I was like, yes, please, consider me... and then they waitlisted me! I was so pissed at the time, but right now I don't think I could be more thankful than I am now that they did.

Yeah, so the funny thing about this thread is the TLS regulars will be debating it long after the OP has moved on.

To OP: Yeah!!! You're in at Harvard! (Consider me admissions. The only catch is you have to go through the hassle of actually applying. You might as well take it seriously. Don't make typos, etc.) You win at life.

3. Valid people with those numbers are going to be ok either way, TLS or not. Also, I [strike]doubte[/strike] doubt that a little internet [strike]scepticism[/strike] skepticism is enough to scare off people with legit [strike]queations[/strike] questions, if so god help 'em.

4. That question, with his numbers, really?

Calling flame serves a purpose of protecting other users from [strike]melicious[/strike] malicious posters and its also fun.

see? making fun of people is fun, even when its really easy.

jk ragged, jk.

not even gonna try to make excuses... although it was really late and my browser was screwed up so that I could not see what I was typing.... and I also can't spell worth a crap...

drsomebody wrote:My .02 (Assuming it's a legit question): Harvard seems to be very numbers driven and I suspect you'll do well with those numbers. That being said, I'm not sure that being treasurer of a frat and such are all that decent for softs when you're competing with other YS applicants. If you're shooting for Yale or Stanford or another school that highlights non-quantitative aspects of your application you might be in for a bit of trouble if you can't spin things well - remember that you're up against folk who have done Peace Corps, TFA, and people who have advanced degrees and real work experience. Still certainly worth a shot, but a bit more thought should be put into the personal statement...

Fixed...HLS won't give a damn if all you did in college was haze pledges. They have to fill 550 spots each year without losing ground numbers-wise on Yale's 200 seats with a higher yield.